About Me

Known principally for his weekly political columns and his commentaries on radio and television, Chris Trotter has spent most of his adult life either engaging in or writing about politics. He was the founding editor of The New Zealand Political Review (1992-2005) and in 2007 authored No Left Turn, a political history of New Zealand. Living in Auckland with his wife and daughter, Chris describes himself as an “Old New Zealander” – i.e. someone who remembers what the country was like before Rogernomics. He has created this blog as an archive for his published work and an outlet for his more elegiac musings. It takes its name from Bowalley Road, which runs past the North Otago farm where he spent the first nine years of his life. Enjoy.

Bowalley Road Rules

The blogosphere tends to be a very noisy, and all-too-often a very abusive, place. I intend Bowalley Road to be a much quieter, and certainly a more respectful, place.So, if you wish your comments to survive the moderation process, you will have to follow the Bowalley Road Rules.These are based on two very simple principles:Courtesy and Respect.Comments which are defamatory, vituperative, snide or hurtful will be removed, and the commentators responsible permanently banned.Anonymous comments will not be published. Real names are preferred. If this is not possible, however, commentators are asked to use a consistent pseudonym.Comments which are thoughtful, witty, creative and stimulating will be most welcome, becoming a permanent part of the Bowalley Road discourse.However, I do add this warning. If the blog seems in danger of being over-run by the usual far-Right suspects, I reserve the right to simply disable the Comments function, and will keep it that way until the perpetrators find somewhere more appropriate to vent their collective spleen.

Followers

Friday, 18 March 2016

Blurred Vision: Why Labour Isn’t Trusted To Govern New Zealand.

Impaired Vision: Veteran Rogernome, Phil Goff, is leading his nearest rival for the Auckland mayoralty by an astonishing 33 percentage points in the latest UMR survey. That's 3 points more than Labour's total support! Clearly, Auckland voters have no difficulty in determining what Goff stands for. Unfortunately, New Zealanders are finding it much harder to determine Labour's ideological outline. This is highly problematic, because the electorate's trust and confidence will only be given to a political party whose features are easy to read.

STEPHEN MILLS, from Labour’s pollsters, UMR Research, today (7/3/16)
confirmed that Labour’s support has slipped back to just 30 percent. He also
informed RNZ’s listeners that Phil Goff is leading his nearest rival for the
Auckland Mayoralty, Victoria Crone, by 33 percentage points. This is, of
course, the same Phil Goff who, as Labour’s leader, failed to squeeze more than
27 percent of the Party Vote out of the New Zealand electorate.

It’s a grim parade of statistics for those of us hoping for
a change of government at next year’s general election. And what it’s telling
us is this: Labour isn’t trusted to govern. Phil Goff may be trusted to lead
the country’s largest city – overwhelmingly trusted. But, Andrew Little is not trusted
to lead the country.

This lack of trust is crippling. If it’s not addressed, and
soon, it will produce yet another electoral defeat. Whether Labour can sustain a
fourth rejection by the electorate – especially if it turns out to be worse
than the 25 percent 2014 result – is highly debateable. A century-old party can
only go on losing for so long before it simply fades away.

It is the privilege of historians to pinpoint the causes of
an institution’s malaise, even when they have little to offer by way of immediate
solutions.

In Labour’s case, the origins of its malady are easily
discerned. The embrace of what were then called “free-market policies”, in the
late-1980s, destroyed Labour as a mass party. Splits, first to the Left, and
then to the Right, further weakened the organisation. That Labour survived at
all as a viable electoral force was due, almost entirely, to the iron will of
Helen Clark. All that has happened to the party since her departure in 2008
only confirms her pivotal role in delaying Labour’s disintegration.

What Clark was unable, or unwilling, to do, however, was the
one thing that might have breathed new life into the Labour Party. To rebuild
Labour as a trusted and decisive political force, it was necessary for someone
to stand up and publicly repudiate Rogernomics.

This needed to be more than simply a half-hearted owning up
to “mistakes”. It had to be a root-and-branch condemnation of the entire
exercise – accompanied by a process of “rejuvenation” that completely denuded
the parliamentary caucus of all its Rogernomes.

This latter exercise is crucial. Indeed, the repudiation of
Rogernomics can only proceed successfully when the Rogernomes themselves are
gone Any attempt to reassert democratic-socialist values and policies while
convinced neoliberal MPs remained in caucus can only result in the most vicious
kind of public political blood-letting – with all the inevitable electoral
damage that such disunity entails.

What, then, do people see when they look at the Labour Party
in 2016? The answer, sadly, is a blur. In the absence of a clear repudiation of
its Rogernomics past, Labour can only present itself as an indistinct, ill-defined
political notion. This is especially true of Labour’s parliamentary caucus
where – believe it or not – there may still be found remnants of the David
Lange-led, but Roger Douglas-controlled, Labour Government of 1984-1990!

With these veteran politicians, and their younger allies, still
in place, even David Cunliffe’s relatively mild attempt (when compared to
Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders!) to dislodge the party from its neoliberal
past provoked the most extraordinary backlash. Andrew Little, has striven
mightily to avoid his predecessor’s fate, but only at the cost of ideological
prevarication and policy confusion. Labour’s stance on the TPPA, for example,
gyrates wildly between opposition and grudging support. Meanwhile, Phil Goff
(the most senior remaining Rogernome in caucus) gets a free pass to vote
against his own party.

Auckland’s voters have rewarded Goff’s undeviating
ideological clarity by making him their runaway favourite for the Mayoralty.
And why not? When it comes to leading a monstrous neoliberal artefact like the
Auckland Supercity, it’s difficult to think of anybody better qualified for the
job.

But, for those of us who not only want to get rid of the
National Party-led Government, but also the dangerously unequal neoliberal
system that it supports, Labour’s blurred outlines and indistinct values
inspire only disappointment and mistrust.

This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Monday, 7 March 2016.

17 comments:

What Clark was unable, or unwilling, to do, however, was the one thing that might have breathed new life into the Labour Party. To rebuild Labour as a trusted and decisive political force, it was necessary for someone to stand up and publicly repudiate Rogernomics.

I have to disagree, Chris. Believe me, I don't want to. My personal preferencewouldbe for something far to the left of anything conceivable in New Zealand at this time, or anytime past. But the reality is that (basic leftist tenet) people are the product of their environment. We've had 30 odd years of neo-liberalism. Political generations have been borne and matured and have no idea that there ever was an alternative. They are not likely to vote in droves for something so utterly beyond their comprehension. A march to the left will simply terrify almost everyone who achieved adulthood after 1984. It will enthuse ... the sort of people who get enthused by leftwing purity and eternal factionalisation.

Realistically, Labour can only win from the centre. Once Labour has secured some sort of hegemony, then the process can be reversed. I'm not too hopeful, because power corrupts and it is far easier to mouth shibboleths than it is to turn them into effective policies. This isn't a comforting message for the left, but the view from the moral high ground looks suspiciously like the view from the opposition benches.

It is not just the "free market policies' that were adopted by Labour as the cause for their present malaise. The leadership is full of grey people, bureaucrats and careerist politicians whose only ambition is to get a safe labour seat for a life-long employment sinecure.Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little are the two present favourites to achieve such a prize as both are unable to win a seat themselves , yet are top of the pack in the controlled Labour hierarchy.Trevor Mallard is their inspiration.Labour needs the country but the country needs a socialist party which is not broken down and beyond repair, Twyfords Chinese and Little's Indian and Chinese racist rants are not the party that our New Zealand needs.I am beginning to believe the plague and then green-shoots is the only answer.

The only favourable comment you could make in stoic solace regarding Labours dour outlook, is that they are playing the long game,and that being the Nats, getting a fourth term,Key jumping ship early in the piece,and the ensuing cat fight between Bennet and Collins,for control,that will like Shipley ousting of Bolger,leading to political defeat at the ballot box.

@lurgeeAn excellent point to consider from lurgee. But the reality is that (basic leftist tenet) people are the product of their environment. We've had 30 odd years of neo-liberalism. Political generations have been borne and matured and have no idea that there ever was an alternative. They are not likely to vote in droves for something so utterly beyond their comprehension. A march to the left will simply terrify almost everyone who achieved adulthood after 1984. It will enthuse ... the sort of people wh

But keeping the above in mind, people were looking to politicians to act and organise the country to advance all, and that would have been a general wish. Lurgee thinks that the political mission has changed, and that people no longer recognise the left as being the group that will deliver for them.

But people still need the same things now that they needed when Labour decided to leave what was in their opinion the Marie Celeste, to shift to a cruise ship providing comfort and personal pleasure beyond the purse of most citizens.

So what are these things needed, how can they be delivered now, what methods can be utilised to deliver them and in what form that will provide a good human environment at a practical cost. What will be suitable for now and be designed to exist far into the future with inbuilt facilities that will serve in a time of climate, population and social change. If we need to leave left connotations behind as tainted by affluenza and willingness to abandon their core supporters for the fancy new economics now revealed to be another leaky syndrome method. then perhaps start a new party called the Action for the People Party, and then evoke the idea through IT, it will be the APP app, easy for the young to absorb, familiar to them.

I agree that the Labour Party, if it is to continue to use that name, has to repudiate Rogernomics and all that went with it as a grave mistake with disastrous consequences for the bulk of New Zealanders.

In Labour’s case, the origins of its malady are easily discerned. The embrace of what were then called “free-market policies”, in the late-1980s, destroyed Labour as a mass party........I have a completely different take, for one thing Labour said "this isn't your country (and anyone who objects is racist!)" It is Labour's fault that a Kiwi bids for a Kiwi home against a hand from China and there is no evidence of benefit to those Kiwis who would usually support labour.It is Labour's fault that we now enjoy traffic (as never before).It is Labour's fault that we have a plethora of low wage service economy job's.It is Labour's fault that we face apartment living. It is Labour's fault that the tourist moves from the seat behind the driver into the driver's seat.The media can construct reality all it likes but those comments that flood the comments section (when they are allowed) will keep on coming.It is Labour's fault because we would expect National to look after it's own.

"I find your society genuinely admirable in many ways. For example, I met Helen Clark while I was in Wellington. I was invited to her official residence, and waved in by a lone policeman who didn't even check who I was, then I had a barbecue with her. I congratulated her on the public's enlightened attitudes towards racial issues, but she disagreed. She said to me that New Zealand was really a very racist country, and she was determined to do everything she could as prime minister to change that. I thought that was a very bold, honest statement to make to a foreigner, and I really respected her for that." http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/3751531/Acting-giant-reflects-on-NZ-society

and in 2011 it was found that ethnocentrism is moderated by oxytocin so we will have to wait until the current crop of distinguished social scientists retire before we garner a more appropriate view of human behaviour.

"It is Labour's fault that we now enjoy traffic (as never before)."Actually no. There was a comprehensive transport master plan, particularly for Auckland in the 1950s. And I'm pretty sure it was national governments that quietly shelved it and concocted a new master plan with motorways. Sid Holland's national government if I remember correctly. Could be wrong, and I have to go out so I can't be bothered checking :).

"It is Labour's fault that we now enjoy traffic (as never before)." Actually no. There was a comprehensive transport master plan, particularly for Auckland in the 1950s.....The decision to increase the population (so we could become a diverse rather than homogenous society) was Labour's (regardless of what decisions were made about traffic planning).============And yet Maori let you in JH or at least your reasonably immediate ancestors. Do you not see the irony here? (Mind you I suppose many Maori regret doing that anyway.)----On the issue of immigration my views are more in-line with the majority of Maori. Labour started the second great colonisation. Pakeha working class know how Maori felt now.